Haha, it would be hilarious to get WN’s take on all this.

And Kelhus also agrees that his first ban was legitimate. I do not know what it was for.

Hilarious?

I was entertained.

This:

Is not the same as this:

I mean yeah, sure-- I'm putting some words in WN's mouth there that he isn't saying. It's pretty close though and I did not read his post before making mine today. Kelhus also corrected me on a different point there.

This thread has turned into a Rashomon kind of situation where we get several different accounts of how and why kel was banned.

The problem here is you don't think he's full of **** when he actually is full of ****. Which is why you get roundly and routinely mocked when you enter into that sphere of deliberate obtuseness to defend him and others, or some points you make

Kelhus is and has always been a clown. If you post on a forum for a ****ing decade and get banned a half a dozen times, then you're simply just an intractable moron. Has nothing to do with whether I disagree with him or not lol I put him on ignore the minute he enters that mode of behavior that makes it very clear he's a lot of noise and not worth bothering to read. Apparently he's been banned more than the times I've noticed, which makes this all even more laughable

That you still feel the need to go to bat for him is...smh lol JagsFan.gif

The guy has been banned for months so you should probably try looking in the mirror.
But yeah-- I like Kelhus and don't mind him at all. That doesn't mean that sometimes his schtick didn't get old. It did. But the only people I have a problem with are the douchebaggy types and that's never been Kelhus. I think you should try getting over it.

Unless someone in the know, knows more, I take what Well Named said as the most reliable source and I trust his judgment highly.

Lol @ "try looking the mirror" and lol @ "you should try getting over it"

That's you projecting again. I merely explained the inanity which you defend

You're the one posting gripes about why he was banned and still don't seem to get it

I thought he was a good mod, but too lenient on some posters who were very clearly not interested in a good faith discussion and were consistently intellectually dishonest

Those types of posters should be infracted and banned more swiftly and more often

The problem is when you try to be fair to "both sides" you end up enabling bad faith arguing and intellectual dishonesty because, at least in the US, the right wing has backed themselves into corners of defending the indefensible and saying absurd things with a straight face rather than just admitting there are several topics on which they have no leg to stand on wrt to their positions, if they even maintain them with an honest conviction

That this is how you frame discourse says a lot more about you than you realize.

He was terrible; chez slavishly defending him should be your clue that he was not a good mod.

His decisions were more or less spot on. I think what most of his (legitimate) critics objected to was the lack of transparency. Then there is of course the crowd that considered him a traitor which, whether true or not, has no bearing whatsoever on whether he was a good mod.

No, he just sort of came from out of nowhere, unbanned the shittiest posters on this website without checking in on what the community thought about it, and left a mess for future mods to handle. The fact that he thought jdock/kelhus/quickben shouldn't have been banned kind of speaks to how absurd his judgement is.

Not everyone wants to post on UP where Trump supporters get contained or banned on sight. Some of us want to troll engage in thoughtful discussion with them.

Can't you just go over to 4chan or wherever those people hang out and fling poo? Sucks for anyone who wanted a good-faith, adult conversation about politics.

Well, if your idea of a bad (or bad faith) poster is an indoctrinated soul who spews non-stop extremist propaganda and conspiracy theories, presumably that cuts both ways and Victor should also be banned, no?

Victor and Kelhus get different things correct, because sociobiology and Marxism have different things to say. They're both a bit of ideologues there-- but not people you can't talk to. And I'd be fighting for Victor too here if it were different.

Whoosh.

Clue: I've never said kelhus should be/should have been/should remain banned.

In good faith i'm going to disagree.

But then again I suffer from leniency. A far better mistake than the other way imo.

Seems fair.

Well, I don't want them either banned, so that's where you and I differ, but glad you're not a hypocrite - a lot of others would be offering a defence of one but not the other in your spot.

Remember the trolley would actually ban well named from the other place.

Its feels cruel to even suggest that trolley holds that position in good faith.